tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post8539081140974893779..comments2018-05-24T07:13:59.248-07:00Comments on Idiosyncratic Whisk: We are the 100%.Kevin Erdmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-56843346718506409922017-02-21T14:41:42.831-07:002017-02-21T14:41:42.831-07:00TravisV here.
Thanks Kevin! I assure you that I ...TravisV here. <br /><br />Thanks Kevin! I assure you that I agree: we are the 100%!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12263325667618661730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-17968757525110797442017-02-19T19:16:18.292-07:002017-02-19T19:16:18.292-07:00Good point on the population. Adjusting for the s...Good point on the population. Adjusting for the size of the labor force reduces it to 92%. Our shared abundance only accounts for 92% of incomes after the adjustment.<br /><br />On the other point, the original article I referenced was referring to corporate ownership and the influence of factor shares on capital incomes. Changes of the composition within factor shares are not pertinent. In fact, that is kind of the point. Trends in compensation distribution have very much to do with changes within the composition of labor and very little to do with the relative income going to capital. If you are saying that some of that shift has come from workers developing &quot;human capital&quot; or from workers receiving deferred compensation in the form of ownership shares, that is still a story about the difference between workers. In any case, as an investor, if I knew that total compensation in 20 years would be no higher than it is today, that would clearly be bad news, not good news, and it would be a tip-off to avoid investing in this economy. That is not the impression I think one would get from the paper I referenced.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-74126003857975631762017-02-19T17:41:31.586-07:002017-02-19T17:41:31.586-07:00«Technological progress that raises aggregate cons...«Technological progress that raises aggregate consumption and benefits both workers and shareholders explains general growth in stock market values, which is about 97% of the growth in income and wealth»<br /><br />That is missing the effect of workforce growth: it was 63 million in 1950 and 149 million in 2014. Presumably this means that a factor of 2.2 in growth is due to the &quot;economy&quot; being bigger, not better, so that 97% is wildly overestimated.<br /><br />Also median unit wages have not grown much since 1980. Most of the growth in employee income has happened at the top, where there is a significant proportion of rent or profit from &quot;capital&quot;.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-66556029298982935812017-02-17T13:16:15.333-07:002017-02-17T13:16:15.333-07:00Agreed. But let&#39;s also not forget that a big p...Agreed. But let&#39;s also not forget that a big part of the argument is the distribution within labor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-22659754982978658962017-02-17T10:44:08.086-07:002017-02-17T10:44:08.086-07:00I am not arguing against legitimate efforts to equ...I am not arguing against legitimate efforts to equalize status. I am arguing against illegitimate efforts to equalize status. It is highly counterproductive to focus relative status efforts on relationships that are practically mathematically fixed. There are many sources of relative well-being that aren&#39;t fixed, complex, complementary relationships. Those would be places to look for equalization. The evidence on the capital/labor divide is overwhelming. Attempts to improve compensation by 20% in 20 years by transferring that income from capital will most likely end up mostly reducing income of both. Framing such as what this paper appears to do gives the impression that relative shares are overwhelmingly important regarding capital income when, in fact, the opposite is the case.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-22727699814328996972017-02-17T10:30:30.751-07:002017-02-17T10:30:30.751-07:00Understood. All i&#39;m saying is there are two wa...Understood. All i&#39;m saying is there are two ways to &quot;solve&quot; battles over relative status: 1) insist people stop caring about status, 2) make greater efforts to equalize status. Neither has the moral high ground in my mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-58052310398381096382017-02-17T10:07:23.615-07:002017-02-17T10:07:23.615-07:00One more point. One take-away from this is that c...One more point. One take-away from this is that capital and labor are overwhelmingly complements. By inserting the redistributive notion you are rhetorically denying that fact, which I am arguing is destined to fail.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-86800837934198094442017-02-17T10:04:17.615-07:002017-02-17T10:04:17.615-07:00There are many, many more things going on there be...There are many, many more things going on there besides motivation from relative income. The relationship between capital and labor income itself is deep and inscrutable. You&#39;re also interpreting this as an inequality issue, wish is a different topic. Much income inequality and much potential redistribution happens within labor income. Capital income and compensation income a very different animals. One is income from delayed consumption and from exposure to risk and loss and the other is income from personal effort. They don&#39;t even share the same basis.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-1175883064703680312017-02-17T09:51:36.150-07:002017-02-17T09:51:36.150-07:00I could easily flip it around and say &quot;it&#39...I could easily flip it around and say &quot;it&#39;s a shame that humans can&#39;t learn to be equally motivated within massively-redistributive systems.&quot; You are making a value judgement that one &quot;DNA-flaw&quot; is worse than the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com